Category Archives: Cost Reduction

Outcomes is a Dirty Word! Part I

And you shouldn’t have to hear it!

The word of the day is outcomes, and, no matter where it’s used, it’s a dirty word.

You all know that where DEI is concerned, especially in North America, it’s a dirty word. As @Jason Busch will explain in detail at every opportunity, DEI has replaced “equal opportunity”, but unlike properly applied equal opportunity, which took us two steps forward, DEI, or at least its “outcome”-focussed interpretation, has taken us two step backs.

These days, everything has to be measured, and the belief is that if you don’t meet the goals for whatever racial/religious/women/minority metric your organization has defined to be an appropriate racial/religious/women/minority mix for your organization, then you aren’t diverse, equitable, and inclusive and, therefore, you should go out and immediately hire the racial/religious/women/minority employees you need to meet the metric. Merit be damned. No longer is it the most qualified resource, where someone of a minority is hired when two or more applicants are otherwise equal, it’s the most qualified resource of the identified minority, who might not be at all qualified for the job! It’s the token black employee taken to a whole new level! Not only does it reward incompetence, but it insults minorities who study and work hard to be just as competent, if not more competent, than their white male counterparts.

But I digress — we already know outcomes is the dirty word of DEI. But what you don’t know is outcomes is a dirty word across the business, wherever it is used – and Procurement is no exception! Why? It’s only become the popular battle cry since the Age of (BS) AI, whereas its prior use was been limited to situations where the consultancy, vendor, or analyst firm could hide the darkness and venom that the word contained.

More specifically, until recently, outside of DEI, outcome was primarily the verbiage of GPOs, who were doing their best to convince you to turn over a significant percentage of your procurement to them, or recovery audit firms, who were doing their best to convince you their services were the only way to recover your money that your suppliers were assuredly screwing you out of.

But they reality is that they’ve been both misleading you since the get-go. Sure a GPO can get you better prices than you can get on the long tail with their volumes, but that’s only true for the long tail. Moreover, the reality is that the costs aren’t that much less, if any less, than what you could negotiate on your own if you did a winner-takes-all long-tail RFQ to a MRO, office supplies, electronics supplier who could meet the volume across your long-tail needs, especially since that GPO is charging the supplier an administrative fee of up to 3%, and they’d happily give you the same price to NOT have to pay that fee! Add to that the GPO is charging you for their services, and you’re not saving much. Plus, when you work your way up to the head of the tail, you are definitely in 3-bids-and-a-buy RFQ or auction territory, and the application of a well designed tail spend sourcing solution will save you just as much as a GPO, IF NOT MORE!

Moving to recovery audit firms, their outcome-based pitches sound great, as you only pay their 33% if they recover the money on your behalf and fatten your bank account, but here’s the thing. If you had a properly designed retail-focussed e-procurement solution that integrated supplier and product management, did m-way matches, and prevented payments where you didn’t have good receipts that matched the invoice that matched the PO where the prices matched the contract, rejected duplicate invoices, tracked rejected units and associated credits, applied those credit notes against future orders (with the matching product), etc., you could prevent all of those overpayments in the first place — despite the fact that all the recovery audit firms tell you that overpayments (and their services) are unavoidable.

But there are more, and more modern, examples. The worst is AI-first services-as-software vendors convincing you that you should pay based on “outcomes” instead of on a traditional SaaS pricing model. Their rationale? The majority of SaaS tools that you are paying for aren’t offering you immediate, measurable, savings and, therefore, are too expensive. But if you paid for software based on “outcomes”, you’d have measurable value and you could claim the fee was worth it. And the argument sounds convincing, even if it’s complete and total bullshit. The purpose of most software is to increase efficiency, not save money. That’s the value.

And when the real reason they are pushing outcome-based pricing is that they can’t afford to sell based on a SaaS model because the compute costs of their BS AI-first are too high to cover on traditional SaaS pricing — even though there is a traditional A-RPA SaaS application that does everything their app does for a fraction of the cloud and compute cost, as long as you don’t need a fancy-smancy natural language interface or a slick UX. In other words, if they were honest about the true value of their application, they could never charge enough to cover their costs and would be out of business yesterday.

A second, more modern, example is the big consultancies taking a queue from their GPO, Recovery Audit, and now AI-first services-as-software peers and trying to justify their highly inflated pricing (which has skyrocketed over the last decade as they became the go-to firms for all big tech strategy). Especially since it’s the only way they can overcharge for projects where they are primarily deploying a multitude of AI agents (which we know produce utter garbage, just look at the Deloitte fiascos in Australia and Canada) and juniors that they hope will catch and clean up all of the hallucinations in the deliverables. (Because if they charged based on what the tech and juniors were worth, in a climate where no one wants to pay inflated rates for consultants for projects with potentially guaranteed return, they wouldn’t be able to maintain their high rates.)

There are more examples, but by now you should see the common theme. Which is simply this: “outcomes” is always a way to charge you more for less (and sometimes next to nothing) (just like DEI is an excuse to replace people with actual capability with people with next to no capability).

But the worst part, the blatant financial rip-off that always accompanies a (pure) “outcome-based” sales pitch isn’t the worst of it!

Primary ProcureTech Concern: Cost Control

This is one of the oldest concerns of Procurement. After assurance of supply, control of cost is key.

Why?

Costs are rising. Inflation is coming back with a vengeance. And the trade wars aren’t helping. Rare earths are becoming more rare. Geopolitical tensions and actual wars are resulting in sanctions and cutting off primary supply lines. Everything is driving up costs.

Impact Potential

Shortages can cause significant cost spikes. The costs of raw materials and goods can increase 20%, 50%, 100% or more. During transportation shortages (such as those that occurred during the pandemic), transportation costs can increase as much as tenfold. Costs can cripple an organization, bring down a product or service line, and even an organization if they can no longer manufacture products at a cost that allows them to sell at a price point that consumers can afford.

Major Challenges/Risks

Price Prediction/Trend Analysis: understanding the past, current, and likely future price points to understand when the cost point of a good or service might get to a critical point where it could affect not just profitability, but operation

Impact Events: identifying which events could lead to a rapid, unpredictable, price increase for a good or service, detecting those events, and taking action the minute such an event is predicted

Sustainable Supply: identifying alternate sources of supply that an organization can take advantage of should a primary source become unaffordable or unobtainable, and ensuring those remain affordable until other primary sources can be identified

Final Words

Cost control will always be an issue because an organization can’t pay more for something than it can afford and can’t pay more for raw materials than it can sell the finished good for.

STOP PAYING PROCURETECH/FINTECH ADVISORIES A DOLLAR JUST TO LOSE THREE DOLLARS!

Last week, in our post where we asked if ProcureTech Generated Billions While Practitioners Lost Trillions, we noted three things:

  1. Approximately 1.8 Trillion Dollars (more than the annual GDP of 92% of the countries on Earth) will be wasted this year on Tech-Related Spending
  2. Approximately 600 Billion Dollars will be spent with the big consultancies and analyst firms who do Financial (Technology) and Procurement (Technology) consulting and advisory
  3. That’s three dollars lost for every dollar spent on big consultancy and advisory firms

So how do you stem the bleeding? Especially if you can’t STOP spending mooney on tech advisory because you can’t stop spending money on technology because you can’t survive in today’s digital world without it?

You STOP forking over (high) six and seven figures without a guaranteed return! In other words, unless they save you some coin, then your money they will not purloin!

More specifically, if they are promising outcomes, then (the majority of) their compensation should be 100% dependent on outcomes. If you don’t make bank, then their compensation will tank.

To be even more precise, don’t buy:

  1. any technology platforms where the majority of compensation is tied to successful sourcing events, transactions, etc.
  2. any GPO services unless it’s 100% outcome oriented
  3. any functional outsourcing unless the majority of compensation is tied to ROI

Now, the technology providers and consultancies will push back, steadfastly claiming that their technology and services are worth way more than they are charging, but here’s how you counter:

  1. you will pay a base annual fee for the platform that will cover 150% of their base hosting costs, so they won’t lose, and then a percentage of transactions, identified savings through sourcing events, contract value, etc. where the percentage is calculated such that if you save 100% of their promised savings, they will make 50% more than what you would pay on a fixed cost after negotiation — if they are so confident in their claims, this should be a no-brainer
  2. you will pay a fixed amount on each transaction, calculated based upon the expected savings before you sign the contract, and if they can deliver the savings, you will definitely be using them regularly — and, as with the Tech Provider, you will calculate this so that they win bigger than if you pay them a fixed cost IF they generate a return for you
  3. you will pay a fixed rate per hour that is enough to cover the assigned personnel cost (their salary plus 30% overhead), and any compensation beyond that will be dependent on the department delivering an ROI beyond a certain amount (which is the amount required to cover the basic fee you are paying them); and again, you’ll fix the compensation such that if they deliver 100% or more of what they promise, they will win big too

Now, you’re probably saying the doctor is daft by telling you to offer them 50% more than what you’d have to pay on a fixed cost basis if they deliver, but here’s the reality, without incentive, THEY WILL NOT DELIVER!

There is an 88% technology failure rate across the board, and 94% failure rate if it’s a (Gen-) AI project. The reality is, as we pointed out in our series on how, even if they have good intentions in the beginning, your (technology) vendor will screw you, the vast majority of systems fail to deliver, because, once the contract is signed and you have access to the system, they have zero incentive to do anything else for you.

Similarly, once they have you on a multi-year contract, why should the GPO or consultancy have any incentive to go beyond the minimum? If you want them to continually serve you and look for ways to generate a return for you, make it worth their while. And then you won’t be paying them one dollar just to lose three dollars in return!

This is where you start. Then, you question any consulting contract over 100K to 200K as a mid-market and 1 Million as a large global enterprise. At that point you have to define the value you expect and what gain-share agreement you are going to craft to ensure it.

Does ProcureTech Generate Billions While Practitioners Lose Trillions?

A couple of weeks ago, THE REVELATOR, in his AI Whispering asked Why does the ProcureTech solution side of the table make billions, while the practitioner side loses trillions (and more)? And it’s a fair question. Because even though the practitioners don’t lose trillions on ProcureTech and ProcureTech consulting (as that’s only in the Billions), they DO lose Trillions on Tech and Tech Consulting that the ProcureTech Consulting and ProcureTech providers SHOULD be helping them save money on.

To be precise, at least 1.8 Trillion is going to be lost by Practitioners this year on Technology and Technology Consulting. Earlier this year, in our post on SaaS Spending, we predicted that at least 1.5 Trillion would be wasted based on total industry spend and an average waste of AT LEAST 30% (due to overspend, unused applications and project failure), but we are now revising that up to 1.8 Trillion based upon a minimum projected spend of 5.4 Trillion based on recent Gartner estimates.

To put this in perspective, only 15 countries have a GDP in excess of 1.8 Trillion! In other words, the total technology spend wasted is greater than the individual GDP of 92% of the countries on earth.

But it gets worse.

If you add up the global revenue of the 23 Big Consultancies, which you will be using for ProcureTech, FinTech, and related consulting, it comes to 551 Billion.

Accenture 65
Bain 7
BCG (Boston Consulting Group) 13
Capgemini 25
Cognizant 20
Deloitte 67
E&Y 51
Fujitsu 26
Genpact 5
HCL Technologies 14
Infosys 25
Kearney 2
KPMG 38
McKinsey 19
Mercer 2
NTT Data 30
Oliver Wyman 3
Publicis Sapient 18
PWC 55
Recruit 23
BAH (Booz Allen Hamilton) 1
Tata 31
Wipro 11

And if you add up the global revenues of the 9 big analyst firms, which you will be using for ProcureTech and Fintech advisory, it comes to 51.5 Billion.

Clarivate 0.5
Forrester 0.5
Gartner 6.5
Hackett 0.5
IDC 4.0
IQVIA 15.0
Kantar 3.5
Moodys 7.0
S&P 14.0

That’s a total of 602.5 Billion you’re spending for ProcureTech and FinTech consulting and advisory in return for a loss of roughly 1.8 Trillion!

In other words, for every dollar you spend, you lose three. That’s the reverse of the ROI you should be expecting. You should NOT be investing in Technology or Technology Consulting unless you will get a 3 to 1 return. But what you ARE doing is investing in Technology Consulting and Advisory for a 3 to 1 LOSS! That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you should be doing.

So what should you do? STOP!

Or, if you can’t stop, change the game. More to come …

What Are the Biggest Organizational Cost Saving Levers?

Every year there is a new survey or research report that will name one to three levers as the biggest cost savings levers in an organization, but it’s really not that simple. For example, the SCMR last year reported on a BCG study and the Hackett Group 2024 Procurement Key Issues Report and said, in Managing Procurement in a Price-Sensitive Environment, that:

  • supply chain costs and
  • manufacturing costs

are the biggest levers for cost savings. And while generally true if more than 50% of revenue is being spent outside the global organization’s many four-wall structures, it’s not true if most of the spend is internal (on headcount, property, etc.).

And it’s not true at all in the current environment in America where now tariffs are increasing costs by up to 145% (and there’s no solution, beyond BTCHaaS) and everything is unpredictable.

Moreover, supply chain is generic — is the cost inefficiency in the manufacturer (and if so, is it in their material and component supply chain or in their operation), the distributor, the logistics partners, or the organizational warehousing and inventory management. And if its manufacturing costs, is the bulk of the costs raw materials governed by commodity markets or in the production process? If the former, you can’t do much. If the latter, the assembly line is your oyster.

And then, even if you find the lever, where is it located? Who has access? Do they have the strength and permission to pull it? It’s tough!

Let’s look across the spend (ignoring tariffs because they are beyond your control):

  • products: low quantity, no lever; high quantity, sourcing if the market conditions are in your favour (or about to not be in your favour, so you lock a contract in early for a small hit); if the product was never sourced before, it’s tail spend which typically sees 15% to 30% overpsend
  • services: low quantity, tiny lever; high quantity, across a nation or the globe, if you take a multi-level view, are willing to work with multiple providers, and apply SSDO (Strategic Sourcing Decision Optimization), 30% to 40% can be shaved off with no detriment in service level
  • logistics: mode matters; intermediate storage matters; FTZs matter; source and sinks matter (if you’re selling in multiple countries, you might want to consider producing from multiple countries); easy to take 10% off just with a better network design, sometimes 20% off with a better network design, smarter load distribution across carriers, more cross-docking (and less intermediate storage), and the most appropriate (mixed-modal) transport plan
  • taxes and tariffs: source and sink matters! and, in some countries, so does minority/diversity/etc.; you can cut these in half (or even eliminate them) with better planning; when tariffs can be 20% or more, this matters
  • warehousing: major cities and hubs are expensive, secondary locations can be a fraction of the cost; and if smartly located, can cut your “local” distribution costs to your “local” stores, plants, offices, and/or customers; for years all the studies said inventory cost can be as high as 25% of product cost; better management (not just JIT, that can lead to more stock-outs and losses than a few extra percentage points) can halve this while reducing stock-out rates
  • facilities: if you’re willing to consider a balance between on-site and remote, shared spaces (and designated lockers), locale of choice, costs (and savings) can vary wildly; millions can be saved here in larger companies;
  • personnel: you pay the best people the best rates and you keep them as the best deliver an ROI multiple that is many times an average Joe; but that doesn’t mean you have to overpay for benefits (and with good negotiation, you can get great benefit plans at below market average rates); this can be hundreds of thousands to tens of millions

There are many levers, and the savings potential differs by industry, company size, organizational Procurement maturity, and individual company.

In other words, don’t just look at the top two or three levers, look at all of them and focus on the ones with the most potential, even if they are on the bottom of the “expert lists”.